Page 1865 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on-site accommodation at the perhaps budget end of the market, which is of particular interest for many of the venues held there.
To me, a question which I still do not understand is: why, despite the fact that EPIC has been trying for a number of years to proceed with this plan, which strikes me as a very good plan, given the noted shortage of budget accommodation in the ACT, has EPIC not been able to proceed with these plans, despite their clear intent? And that is something that is still not clear to me. It is not clear to me why moving EPIC into a government department will necessarily improve that situation.
I think it would also be fair to say, from talking with stakeholders, that there has been some mixed commentary on the performance of the board. Some people have been very positive in terms of the energy, the expertise and the commitment that the board puts into running EPIC but I think there has also been a level of frustration about the board’s ability to move forward, about getting things done. Again, I think this comes back to the fact there have clearly been some blockages somewhere in the process of EPIC reporting to government. The fact that there is still not quite a full strategic plan for EPIC strikes me as a very odd situation.
It is also very interesting to consider some of the other venues that have gone into the Territory Venues and Events Unit of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services. I think Manuka Oval is an interesting example. Previously the situation was that there was a board, jointly organised by the AFL and cricket organisations in the territory. They had two members each on the board, and the chair of the board was an independent party, a very experienced gentleman.
The feedback from those organisations is an interesting one. They said that the loss of the board and the movement into Territory and Municipal Services took away some of the real pride and energy that was brought to it by the groups that were the users of the oval. Instead it went into the department as part of a conglomeration, and you have lost that real value, that real community spirit, that was there in running a venue.
This is one of the key concerns for the Greens about the proposal for EPIC. Where does this leave us? I think, with the legislation and the situation we have, we are working with black-and-white options. The government has put forward, “We do it this way or we do not.” I think that there are other options. We have formed the view that there is real value in retaining a board with a range of community input and experience.
Our primary concern is to retain a level of community input into the future of EPIC. We believe there is real value in that. Certainly if you look at the current qualifications and experience of the sitting members of the board, there is a breadth of experience from across the Canberra community: lawyers, businesspeople, union representatives. This brings a depth to the board that we believe there is some value in. I am not standing here saying the board is without fault or the board is perfect. There is perhaps room for improvement, and I think that there is opportunity there.
Certainly we welcome the fact that EPIC is now sitting in a portfolio under the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. Previously it sat under the Treasury
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .